Fazio et al v. ReconTrust Company, N.A. et al

Filing 36

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James denying 29 Motion to Strike (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

Northern District of California

6
7

MICHAEL A. FAZIO and KIM M. FAZIO,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

No. C 13-554 MEJ
ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO STRIKE (Docket No. 29)

9
RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A., et al.,
10
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Strike, filed on June 21, 2013. Dkt. No. 29. The

14 Court finds this motion suitable for disposition without oral argument and VACATES the August 1,
15 2013 hearing. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Having considered the parties’ papers, the Court finds it appropriate
16 to deny Defendants’ Motion. Although Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint five days after the
17 deadline, it is preferable to consider this case on the merits, and Defendants have shown no prejudice
18 based on this delay. Further, Plaintiffs did seek declaratory relief in their initial Complaint, even if it
19 was not listed as a separate cause of action. Finally, Defendants fail to address Plaintiffs’ punitive
20 damages and attorneys’ fees claims in their Reply. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion is DENIED.
21 The Court shall address Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (DKt. No. 28) separately.
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24 Dated: July 23, 2013
25
26
27
28

_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
United States Magistrate Judge